A Community Response to Tourism, Focusing on the Home-Stay Program in K Village in Nainital, Uttarakhand, India Md Masood IMRAN*,** and Ngoc Thi Bich NGUYEN***

Home , Jammu and Kashmir, Nainital district

Journal of Urban andA CommunityRegional Studies Response on Contemporary to Tourism, Focusing India 4(2): on 55–62 the Home-stay (2018) Program in K Village in Nainital,The Center Uttarakhand, for Contemporary India India Studies, Hiroshima University Research Note http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hindas/index.html

A Community Response to Tourism, Focusing on the Home-stay Program in K Village in Nainital, Uttarakhand, India Md Masood IMRAN*,** and Ngoc Thi Bich NGUYEN***

*Graduate Student, Taoyaka Program, Hiroshima University, 739–8522, Japan **Faculty, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh ***Graduate Student, Taoyaka Program, Hiroshima University, 739–8522, Japan E-mail: [email protected]*,**, [email protected]***

Abstract e tourism industry in India has grown enormously and is becoming a major source of economic growth in India. is paper focuses on studying the possibilities of home-stay programs and the willingness of the residents in Uttarakhand on such programs. Considering the tourism perspective of India, home-stay programs are rather unusual. Only Munsiyari and Sarmoli in the Johar Valley, and the Ladakh Autonomous Region in Jammu and Kashmir are the two examples. is research is a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches through household survey, an average treatment eect, community economic development analysis, eld observations, interpretative analysis, and ethnographic understanding of K village, Nainital District, Uttarakhand. e results show that the tourism industry has not brought economic benets for the households involved in the industry; however, this could be owing to the community not being involved in tourism development. In addition, most of the villagers considered that the home-stay program could create opportunities for jobs and improve the income of the local community. In the study area, we found private entrepreneurship, but the home-stay program has not yet been developed. is research paper expects to assist making decisions to initiate an extensive home-stay program under the “Endogenous Tourism” program with some re-evaluations of not only the previously mentioned village of Uttarakhand, but also other remote locations in India, considering the colorful and cultural-rituals of rural living in India. Key words rural development, community base tourism, home-stay, rural study, India

I. Introduction base for tourism, and particularly for a home-stay tourism project. is village’s experience can help to project For Hindu believers, especially in Haridwar and an evaluation matrix as an interpretative tool that other Rishikesh, Dev Bhoomi or the “Land of God” is a synonym communities can use to determine whether a home-stay for Uttarakhand. Interest in religious tourism is high project might be worthwhile as a livelihood strategy. among Hindu believers. However, the Corbett-Nainital is paper has explored the possibilities of community and Nankmatta circuits are famous among fun-loving involvement in tourism and, in particular, the feasibility tourists for their changing weather, mountain trekking, of developing a home-stay program in K Village, Nainital skiing, para-gliding, camping, angling, mountaineering, District, Uttarakhand. It focuses on the potential for rock climbing and forests to explore. e driving force developing community-based tourism (CBT) in K Village of economic growth in Uttarakhand is largely dependent by looking at the social and economic benets of tour- on tourism. Home-stay programs have not been widely ism for the local community, as well as ways of facilitat- considered as a way of expanding the tourism indus- ing interactions between tourists and local people for a try in Uttarakhand or India as a whole. In the state of mutually enriching experience. Our analysis reveals that Uttarakhand, Sarmoli Village in the Johar Valley has set most local villagers are interested in community-based up the only home-stay initiative. In the broader context tourism and would like to contribute signicantly to rural of the Indian subcontinent, Ladakh in Jammu and Kasmir tourism development. provide other examples of home-stay programs. Sarmoli village, in Munsiyari District, Uttarakhand, is the primary II. An Overview of the Tourism Industry in example and rst experience of a home-stay program for India the Ministry of Tourism of Uttarakhand. However, even the villagers of Uttarakhand do not know much about From 2004–2005 to 2013–2014, tourism has con- home-stay tourism. In this study, the example of Sarmoli tributed 51% of India’s GSDP. According to UNWTO, has created enough interest to develop a solid community it contributes about 4.4% of the State Gross Domestic

Product (SGDP) and increases employment opportuni- 2005; Manyara and Jones, 2007; Mitchell and Muckosy, ties by 2%. In recent years, the GDP of India has risen 2008; Rozemeijer, 2001; Tosun, 2000) can empower a steeply, but there is still a huge gap between the country’s community and preserve its social, cultural, and natu- urban centers and rural poverty. e Government of India ral resources. Home-stay programs are one strategy to has therefore gured out a way to erase the poverty gap develop community-based tourism. Research on the by promoting tourism industries. In the beginning, the development of Community-based Ecotourism (CBET) Indian Ministry of Tourism started a campaign with the activities in the Mekong region of Asia found that home- concept, “Incredible India.” It was a huge success story. stays were among the top activities promoted within com- When this campaign began, around 2006, India hosted munities that could help to reduce the incidence of rural around 4.43 million foreign tourists. e campaign was poverty (Leksakundilok, 2004). In fact, CBET is a modi- based on the well-known approach of destination-based ed version of CBT. Home-stay programs can easily be traditional tourism. According to the Ministry of Tourism implemented because the start-up costs are low, they pro- India, 3.9 million foreign tourists came to India in 2005, vide aordable and inexpensive lodging to tourists, they increasing signicantly to more than 8 million in 2015 can be implemented in remote areas, the funds directly and 8.8 million in 2016. In 2016, the tourism and hospi- impact the local economy, and the cultural and natural tality sectors directly contributed US$47 billion to India’s heritage of the location can be shared with tourists. G D P. 1 Home-stays are distinct from other forms of tourism According to the India Brand Equity Foundation because they oer travelers a unique experience of the (IBEF), the Indian tourism and hospitality industry is con- host’s culture and lifestyle (including food and shelter). sidered a key driver of growth within the Indian services Home-stays directly benet community members with sector. India has signicant potential, with a rich cultural a vested interest in preserving the surrounding environ- and historical heritage, ecological variety, and many dif- ment. ferent terrains and places of natural beauty spread across e existing successful mountain home-stay programs the country to boost the tourism industry. In addition, the in India are the Ladakh Home-stay Program and the demand from foreign tourists has signicantly increased, Sarmoli Home-stay Program. ese two successful home- due to the Visa on Arrival scheme, which started in 2015. stay stories were developed by focusing on programs in A couple of years ago, the Government of India devel- rural, remote mountainous regions that relied on a grow- oped a strategy to diversify tourism products and distrib- ing CBT industry as their main economic driver. ese ute the socio-economic benets of tourism to every part programs essentialized the local residents for their own of the country. Under this strategy, the Government of economic benet, while preserving the surrounding cul- India established a program called “Endogenous Tour- tural, natural, and built environments. e successful pro- ism,” with the support of the UNDP, to promote India’s grams in Ladakh and Sarmoli were chosen as home-stay cultural heritage and traditional cras, as an alternative models because of their similarities to K Village—the area model for rural tourism. Following this strategy, the tour- to which this study has applied its evaluation matrix. e ism department of Uttarakhand introduced a campaign home-stay program in Ladakh oers accommodation in known as “10,000 rooms in 1,000 villages” in 2008 (Gov- several villages, and provides insight into the development ernment of India et al., 2008). is project has opened up of a multi-village program. Sarmoli is one of the great a doorway for community involvement. success stories of the Uttarakhand mountain region—a According to the Uttarakhand Tourism Development home-stay program that has been judged to be an ideal Master Plan for 2007–2022, K Village is in Tourism Zone home-stay experience. A combination of these two mod- 2 (Government of India et al., 2008); however, no endog- els could be implemented in K village. enous tourism activities related to the 10,000 rooms in 1,000 villages campaign have taken place here. is was IV. Methodology one reason for selecting the village for this study on community responses to tourism. is research combines qualitative and quantitative approaches. During the pre-eldwork research phase, III. The Conceptual Framework of the Home- the main jobs were recognizing data, collecting data stay Program from archival sources, and preparing the questionnaires. A semi-structured questionnaire was prepared so that e principles of CBT (Goodwin, 2006; Kontogeorgopoulos, we could conduct in-depth interviews. Interview ques-

— 56 — A Community Response to Tourism, Focusing on the Home-stay Program in K Village in Nainital, Uttarakhand, India tions were developed, based on key themes, including Here, a home-stay program has been chosen as a pos- general characteristics of the area, local heritage sites, sible strategy for community-based tourism in K village. participation in tourism, and the respondents’ attitudes is program has been shaped by eight major features towards tourism. e questions were open ended to allow and components: being rural and remote, practicing sub- researchers to obtain further insights and richer data. sistence agriculture, exhibiting cultural heritage, and pro- e eld survey was conducted over a two-week period moting community economic development (CED), as well and the preparatory pre-eld work was carried out in one as the opinions of current tourists, private sector tourism month. entrepreneurs, and village leaders. ese components During the eld work period, 72 households were sur- have helped to shape the home-stay program and generate veyed to estimate the inuence of the tourism sector on an evaluation matrix. household income. To examine residents’ perceptions of the impact of tourism development in the central hamlet V. Analysis of the Possibilities for (KT) of K Village, we used a quantitative survey, as well Community Involvement as an in-depth interview with 30 individual residents. e study also surveyed 30 visitors to examine their behavior 1. Present tourism scenario of economic bene t to toward the CBET, and especially their willingness to par- the community ticipate in the home-stay program at K Village. rough Before scrutinizing the possibility of a home-stay pro- in-depth interviews, oral historical data, including epics, gram, this study analyzed the overall economic sharing of myths, rhymes, folksongs, tales, proverbs, and sayings— villagers in KT Hamlet. e present situation was analyzed what has turned out to be an oral history—were observed using household survey data and an average treatment and collected. rough an opinion survey, the dominant eects (ATE) model to compare treatments (or interven- class in the study area were approached for in-depth tions) in randomized experiments, policy intervention interviews. ese were carried out under a frame of power evaluations, and medical trials. e ATE in this study was dynamics and essentialized ideas of community-based used to measure the dierence in mean (average) income tourism, to identify which dominant and established ideas between units assigned to the treatment (HH involved in of tourism were essentially interwoven into the enterprises the tourism industry) and units assigned to the control and rationality of the project of sustainability. During this (HH not involved in the tourism industry). e equation time, the study adopted a reexive ethnographic method. was as follows: In the study area, the following actors were considered ATE =E[X |T =1]−E[X |T =0] for investigative interviews: Government Sector, Tourist, ij i ij i

Residence and Private Sector. Where Xij is the average income from household i to j. Data were analyzed using propensity score matching Treatment variable Ti=1 if a household derives income methods (PSM) to assess the eect of the tourism industry from the tourism industry and Ti=0 otherwise. on average household income. In the statistical analysis, e outcome variable is the average income of the PSM was used to estimate the eect of a treatment by household, calculated by the author. accounting for the covariates that received the treatment. e independent variables are: hhmember (total num- In this study, the treatment eect was estimated simply ber of household members), hhedu (educational level of by comparing the average household incomes of people household head), and hhage (age of household head). who were and were not involved in the tourism industry. e negative ATE in this estimate shows that house- PSM attempts to control for these dierences to make the holds that receive income from the tourism industry have groups receiving and not receiving treatment more com- a signicantly lower average income (−26437.4) than do parable. households that do not receive income from the tourism

Table 1. The di erence in average income between households that receive income benet from tourism and those that do not receive income from tourism

Ave_income Coef Std. Err. z P>z [ 95% Conf. Interval] incomebene t_tourism (1 vs 0) −26437.4 11511.44 −2.3 0.022 −4.8999.4 −3.875.34 Source: Field survey, Imran and Nguyen, July 2017

— 57 — IMRAN M and NGUYEN NTB industry (Table 1). is suggests that the tourism sector during this process of community economic development. decreases average household income. However, this esti- e CED approach is a combined process of economic mate measures the average eect of the treatment; a posi- and community development. Home-stay programs are a tive or negative ATE does not indicate that any particular CED process with proven success. individual would benet or be harmed by the treatment. When asked for their attitudes toward tourism, 63.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that they did not feel 2. Examine the community response to tourism irritated by tourism in the community. Interestingly, more Another aim of this research was to identify the than 76% of the respondents did not think their com- response of local residents to the idea of community- munity recreational resources were overused by tourists. based tourism development, especially in relation to the At the same time, 70% of the respondents agreed that the costs and benets that CBT could bring to individuals environment was deteriorating because of tourism, and and the community as a whole. e result was an estimate that tourist activities were the main cause of pollution in K drawn from in-depth interviews with 30 residents in the Village. Most respondents did not agree that their quality study site. of life had been changed or caused to deteriorate by tour- Most respondents said that they rarely had direct ism (70%). (Table 2) contact with visitors (70%) and had never been involved e above-mentioned analysis illustrates the positive or asked for their opinions about tourism development views of villagers towards tourism and their willingness (87%). to be a part of the tourism industry. ey believe that tourism can diversify their economy and benet local 3. Promoting community economic development products, strengthening the community as a result. On (CED) the question of communicating with foreign tourists, the ese eld experiences and interviews showed clearly village is fortunate to have a good level of education. In that local people wanted to benet from tourism and felt almost 99% of houses, at least one or two people have it was important to participate in the local community graduated or are studying, and their English prociency is

Table 2. Attitudes toward tourism among residents in K village n=30 Disagree (%) Agree (%) Behavior of local villagers toward the tourism industry I often feel irritated because of tourism in my community 63.4 36.6 My quality of life has deteriorated because of tourism 73.4 26.6 Behavior toward the tourism industry and related environmental issues I believe tourism in my community causes pollution. 30.0 70.0 Community recreational resources are overused by tourists. 76.6 23.4 The environment in my community has deteriorated because of tourism. 50.0 50.0 Behavior toward the tourism industry and related social and cultural issues Tourism brings in major revenue to the community. 70.0 30.0 Tourism bene ts other industries in my community. 63.4 36.6 Tourism diversi es the local economy. 73.4 26.6 Tourism creates new markets for our local products. 73.4 26.6 I believe that tourism development in my community has brought more advantages than disadvantages. 73.4 26.6 I think that tourism development makes our community stronger. 73.4 26.6 I think that tourism development makes our community dependent on people outside of the community. 66.6 33.4 I think I (could) learn a lot from interacting with tourists. 56.6 43.4 Tourism promotes pride in our culture and way of life among community members. 63.4 36.6 Tourism promotes cultural restoration and conservation. 60.0 40.0 Tourism helps the community become better known to outsiders. 56.6 43.4 Tourism becomes a platform for skill training and learning new ideas for the community. 66.6 33.4 Tourism unites various groups inside the community to work together. 73.4 26.6 Most tourists are respectful of the community. 66.6 33.4 Tourism is another form of education for tourists, enabling them to understand and appreciate the way of life of the host community. 56.6 43.4 Source: Field survey, Imran and Nguyen, July 2017

— 58 — A Community Response to Tourism, Focusing on the Home-stay Program in K Village in Nainital, Uttarakhand, India really good. For a home-stay program, this is a signicant ist resort in K Village; there is one guest house for govern- advantage for K Village. When deciding whether to stay in ment ocials. Even today, this place has been massively K Village or Sarmoli, tourists may consider this advantage unexplored by private sector entrepreneurs. e local of K Village. Young people want to try new ways to earn community has a very negative impression of this resort money, and a home-stay program would be a good oppor- and the tourists who go there. e following photograph tunity for them to do something dierent. (Picture 1) of a notice posted by the hotel authority can be considered evidence of the unfriendly relationship 4. The opinion of the village head between the community, tourists, and the hotel authority. e head of the village was considered an opinion In the interview, the manager of this resort acknowl- leader. In his interview, he claimed that government and edged the unhealthy relationship and the tourists’ poor private sector entrepreneurs didn’t ask his views on build- behavior, especially when it came to garbage management. ing any sort of structures for tourist purposes. He wel- e hotel authorities claimed that they managed their comed the concept of a home-stay program in his locality, garbage appropriately, but we discovered the opposite dur- and thought it would be good for the economy and for ing our eld work, (Picture 2). e following photograph cultural preservation of the local community. He gave us is example of tourist behavior, in particular, the way they important information about the tourism department pollute the environment with trash. loan system; some community members have benetted He agreed that a home-stay program in the local com- from such loans. However, they didn’t talk about the loans during their ocial meeting. During the survey period, we found that local people were not well informed about the loan system. e Village Head claimed that some people bought taxis for tourism purposes, while others extended their houses. In a forthcoming meeting, he will introduce the home-stay program and the government’s loan policy for bettering local communities. He also claimed that K Village was already renowned as a tourist destination, but the local community has ignored opportunities to benet from this. On the other hand, local people have lost their right to access the lake of Khurpatal and are experiencing environmental pollution, especially water pollution and garbage problems. Sometimes tourists ruin their cultivated land. Picture 1. Notice warning tourists to avoid K village, Nainital District e following is a summary of the opinions of the Source: Imran and Nguyen, July 2017 Village Head: He has never considered discussing the tourism issue with Government Agencies or the Private Sector. • He hasn’t discussed tourism in his community meeting. • He is very worried about the behavior of tourists in the ongoing process. From his point of view, the home-stay program is expected to provide additional income and employment for local villagers. e involvement of local people in tourism development will also improve community facilities.

5. Opinion of private sector tourism entrepreneurs Under the tourism expansion policy of the Government of Uttarakhand, a three-star resort has been established, with the support of the government, in K Village, which Picture 2. Garbage beside the Dynasty Resort in K village, is 11 km away from Nainital and a major non-religious Nainital District tourism destination in Uttarakhand. is is the only tour- Source: Imran and Nguyen, July 2017

— 59 — IMRAN M and NGUYEN NTB munity will be a good opportunity for local people to VI. Analyzing the Advantages of a Home- enter the tourism industry. He also wanted to build a stay Program in K Village good relationship with them. He was considering buying vegetables from local small-scale farmers, who found it Home-stay programs essentialize rural lifestyles and dicult to transport their goods to Nainital Market. He livelihoods. In other words, being rural and remote, suggested that the hotel could buy their goods—the hotel practicing subsistence agriculture, exhibiting a cultural is a big consumer, especially during the tourism season. heritage, promoting community economic development Summary of the opinion of private-sector tourism (CED), and the Himalayan landscape are advantages for entrepreneurs: communities that participate in home-stay programs. e • They emphasized the importance of developing a good advantages can be analyzed as follows: relationship with the local community. Rural Settings: Given its geographical location, com- • They wanted to develop a good relationship with the munication system, and local economy, K Village must be local community by buying vegetables from small-scale considered a rural and remote village. According to the farmers. literature review, rural and remote locations are the best • Waste should be managed by the institution but also by places for home-stay programs. K Village is an ideal place tourists. because it combines basic home structures with a rural • An overflow of tourists causes pollution in K Village environment. However, this village also has a moderately good sanitation system. 6. Opinion of present-day tourists Agricultural Practices: e home-stay program in K To evaluate the prospects for community-based tour- Village can link to agritourism programs. Visitors will ism, and especially the home-stay program, we inter- have a chance to experience the rural lifestyle of a com- viewed 30 randomly selected tourists and received a very munity in which farming is an integral part (Picture 3). In signicant positive response to the home-stay concept. the other words, tourists will directly experience this type e result describes the opinions of present-day tourists, of subsistence farming. especially younger people. 20 visitors (65% of the group) Cultural Heritage: Preserved local traditions and rituals would be very happy to join a home-stay program in K are attractive phenomena for home-stay tourists. K Village Village. Only 10 visitors said that they would not be will- maintains its own cultural heritage. During the eld work ing to try the home-stay program. period, a number of cultural activities take place. K village maintains Kumaon culture, which is a blend of indigenous 7. Interviews with residents, summarized and immigrant culture. Many people have migrated from Participants were asked to agree or disagree with state- other part of India, with their own myths, dialects, lan- ments measuring their opinions. Out of 30 opinion pro- guages, folk literature, festivals, fairs, and forms of artistic viders, around 80% strongly agreed with the statements. expression. e inuence of all of these cultures have is means that they view tourism as a positive phenom- constructed Kumaon culture. Marriage ceremonies (Pic- enon for their area. rough interviews and by summariz- ture 4) are colorful, vibrant events and a special feature of ing the opinions of members of the local community, we Kumaon culture. e marriage season would be the best arrived at the following ndings: time for tourists to come to K village and be close to these • Communities want to develop community-based tour- events, while staying in a villager’s house. ism. e researchers held discussions with several residents • The Tourism Department of the Uttarakhand govern- of K Village and Nainital (e.g. Kamla Devi, Maya Devi ment oers loans to local people to develop small-scale and others), during which they showed photographs tourism services. and described Kumaon rituals. To briey summarize • People are not properly informed about the loan system their explanation, the Kumaon people organize Jagars to for developing home-stay tourism. please a goddess. e most prominent goddess is Naina • Local people are seeking opportunities to benefit from Devi, an incarnation of the goddess Parvati. e rst the tourism industry. Katyuri queen, Jiya Rani, established Naina Devi as a • They have very vibrant Kumao-cultural events, includ- goddess among the Kumaon people. e myths of Shiva- ing ritual events, holy festivals, a Nanda Devi Festival, Parvati are told about Naina Devi in the Nainital region. Kumao-food and other attractions. In Kumaon culture, another popular goddess is Nanda Devi. According to popular accounts, Nanda Devi is an

— 60 — A Community Response to Tourism, Focusing on the Home-stay Program in K Village in Nainital, Uttarakhand, India

Picture 3. Subsistence Agricultural Patterns of K village, Nainital District Source: Imran and Nguyen, July 2017 Picture 5. Ending Point of the Holly Festival in a Villager’s House, Nainital District Source: Imran and Nguyen, July 2017

ey started from the local temple singing holly songs in the Kumaon language. In this case, their main instru- ment was a hurka or local drum. e women moved from temple to temple and house to house (Picture 5) narrating folktales and singing in praise of their gods and goddesses. Photographing the Beautiful Himalayan Landscape of K Village: For anyone who loves serenity, K Village is the perfect place. Most tourists love to experience natural serenity. K Village is close to Nainital Town. In the Kumaon Himalayan region, this place seems like a secret Picture 4. Mariage Ceremony in Kumaon Culture haven hidden in the mountain, echoing with the sounds Source: Modi ed after http://www.nainital.info/culture-of- of nature instead of machine age humans and their bois- kumaon/ (accessed April 14, 2017) terousness. A few, simple, helpful village folk can be seen tending their farms. Rejuvenating the spirit, quiet and incarnation of the Greek goddess Naina, who came from even moregreen aer the rains, K Village is the welcome the Himalaya with the Indo-Greeks and Kushan Kings. In change so many people long for. e road to K Village is fact, Nanda Devi is a very typical Kumaoni goddess. covered with tall trees. e sheer drop of these trees seem Kumaon culture has various kinds of food. e dierent to be standing for the luck. types of food and their names were provided by a resident of K Village and student of Kumaon University, Deepshi- VII. Concluding Remarks about the kha Panday and her lovely family. e home-stay program Feasibility of a Home-stay Program in could become a top attraction for tourists just for the K Village Kumaon food. Unfortunately, they didn’t provide any photographs, but they did write down a detailed list, which Based on the above interpretative analysis, eld obser- included Bal Mithai (“Chocolate” Mithai), Bhatt Ka Joula, vations, and literature review, K Village has not developed Muli ka echua, Gathi, Gaderi Ki Sabji, Gauhat ki Daal, any form of community-based tourism. Because the Lason Ka Lur, Ras Bhat, Jholi Bhat, Bathue ka Paratha, region focuses mainly on agricultural production, the Madwe Ki Roti, Bhatt Ki Churkani, Bari Bhat, Bhang Ki average income of households that have recently become Chatnee, Kaapa Bhaat, Churkani, Dhai ka Jaula, Papad involved in the tourism industry is no higher than that Ki Sabji, Peenalu Ki Sabji, Allu Gutuk, Chanda Devi aur of families who are not involved. is may reect the fact Saladi ka Raita, and Pinalu Gutuk. that the community is not involved in tourism develop- During the eld survey, the Holly Festival began. It ment. lasted for thirteen days and all of the women took part. For all of the reasons discussed above, developing a

— 61 — IMRAN M and NGUYEN NTB home-stay program would be a feasible way of providing e home-stay program will be the main feature of the economic benets for the K Village community. Most of village’s community-based tourism program. It will regen- the villagers interviewed believed that home-stay pro- erate the local economy and help to preserve the natural grams could create opportunities at the local level and and cultural heritage. It will also give tourists a chance to raise the income of local communities. experience local culture. Ladakha and Sarmoli in Uttarakhand are examples of Indian communities where home-stay programs have Notes been successful and earned money from tourism. In the beginning, Sarmoli struggled to install a modern sanita- 1. Please see the following report: World Travel & Tourism tion and bathroom system. K Village has already solved Council’s Economic Impact. (2015). WTTC Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2015. this problem. e village also has English-speaking members of the community. ese features will help to ensure References that the home-stay program can grow in a managed fash- ion. Goodwin, H. (2006): Community-based Tourism Failing to Deliver? Although communities and hosts have contributed ID 21 Insights (Issue no.62). Department for International their knowledge of home-stay programs, K Village will Development, London. (E) face some challenges in implementing the home-stay Government of India, Government of Uttarakhand, United Nations model. is report has not focused on the implementation Development Program and World Tourism Organization of the program. To make it a reality, the villagers will need (2008): Uttarakhand Tourism Development Master Plan 2007–2022, Final Report Vol.1, https://www.scribd.com/ to decide where to direct their conservation eorts. ey doc/183014649/Uttarakhand-Tourism-Development-Master- will also have to train a workforce. Additional coordina- Plan-pdf (accessed April 14, 2017). tion is recommended between the villagers and private Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005): Community-based Ecotourism sector resorts around conservation eorts. While this in Phuket and Ao Phangnga, ailand: Partial Victories and survey didn’t explore potential conservation eorts in the Bittersweet Remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), Khurpatal region, two potential areas surfaced through 4–23. (E) this survey. e rst was the protection of forests and sec- Leksakundilok, A. (2004): Ecotourism and Community-based Eco- tourism in the Mekong Region. University of Sydney, Australian ond was water conservation. Mekong Resource Centre, Sydney. (E) e overall conclusions are as follows: Manyara, G. and Jones, E. (2007): Community-based Tourism • In K Village, the local community and private sector are Enterprises Development in Kenya: An Exploration of their working as individual entities. ey sometimes behave Potential as Avenues of Poverty Reduction. Journal of Sustain- as rivals. able Tourism, 15(6), 628–644. (E) • Everyone in the sector shares the same opinion about Mitchell, J. and Muckosy, P. (2008): A misguided quest: Community- based tourism in Latin America. Overseas Development Insti- the deteriorating environment. tute, London. (E) • However, people would like to invite the tourists to Rozemeijer, N. (2001): Community-based tourism in Botswana: abide by norms and regulations. e SNV experience in three community-tourism projects. SNV • Garbage management must be improved because Botswana, Gaborone. (E) causes disagreements between stakeholders. With the Tosun, C. (2000): Limits to community participation in the tourism implementation of home-stay program, the community development process in developing countries. Tourism Man- agement, 21, 613–633. (E) can work out ways to manage the garbage together.

— 62 —